U.S. Supreme Court

Policy, policing, and community intervention have positively transformed California public safety 

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta today announced the publication of the California Criminal Justice Statistical Reports for 2025, a suite of annual reports covering Homicide in California, Crime in California, Use of Force Incident Reporting, Juvenile Justice in California, and Crime Guns, Inspections, and Handguns in California. The information contained in the reports reflects statistics for 2025 as submitted by California law enforcement agencies and other criminal justice entities. The reports provide policymakers, researchers, law enforcement, and members of the public with vital statewide information on criminal justice statistics in California to support informed policy choices based on data and analysis and help protect the safety and well-being of all Californians. 

“Transparent, accurate data helps us understand what is happening in our communities and where more work is needed,” said Attorney General Bonta. “These numbers prove that the investments in community violence intervention over recent years and the commitment to effective partnerships and collaboration between federal, state, and local governments, law enforcement agencies, and community partners are working. Our policing has gotten smarter, more organized, and more coordinated. We’ve created successful organized retail theft programs, human trafficking and fentanyl task forces, and programs targeting violent criminals. These partnerships have led to more success, more accountability and more arrests, which we know is a much better deterrent than disproportionately lengthy and expensive sentences. I want to thank the state and local law enforcement agencies, community-based organizations, gun safety advocacy groups, and state and local leaders who work day in and day out to keep our communities safe. At DOJ, public safety is priority number one and always will be.”

"Every Californian deserves to feel safe in their community," said Governor Gavin Newsom. "These historic results show that when we invest in our communities, support law enforcement, crack down on organized crime, and expand prevention and intervention efforts, we can save lives and improve public safety. California is proving that smart, sustained investments are making a real difference for families across our state." 

DOJ publishes these annual reports to provide the public with statewide criminal justice statistics and to support data-informed decision-making. California is continuing its transition from the decades-old legacy reporting system to the California Incident-Based Reporting System (CIBRS), which will allow agencies to report more detailed information about individual incidents once fully implemented. While that transition continues, the format of this year’s reports remains consistent with prior years.

CIBRS is designed to provide policymakers, law enforcement, researchers, and the public with more context and specificity about crime and public safety trends in California. Law enforcement agencies across the state are at different stages of moving to the new reporting system, and DOJ continues to work with agencies during the transition.

To support completeness and accuracy during this transition period, DOJ continues to accept data submitted through both the legacy system and CIBRS. As a result, the 2025 reports include information collected under both reporting methods. The Attorney General encourages researchers, academics, policymakers, and members of the public to review the data and use it to inform public discussion about California’s criminal justice system. It is important to note that not all agencies were able to submit a full year of data for 2025. For additional context, please reference the “Understanding the Data, Characteristics and Known Limitations” sections in the Crime in California and Homicide in California 2025 reports. 

Highlights and brief descriptions from each report released today are available below: 

Homicide in California 2025 includes data on reported homicides and related information, including victim demographics, homicide arrests, persons sentenced to death, peace officers feloniously killed in the line of duty, and justifiable homicides. Some key findings include:

• In 2025, the homicide rate decreased 18.6%, moving from 4.3 per 100,000 people in 2024 to 3.5 per 100,000 people in 2025, which is a record low.
• California reported 1,374 homicides in 2025, a 17.5% decrease from the 1,666 homicides reported in 2024.
• Firearms remained the most common weapon used in homicides. In cases where the weapon was identified, 66.9% of homicides in 2025 involved a firearm.
• Among homicides where the victim’s relationship to the suspect was identified, 49.4% of victims were killed by a friend or acquaintance; 27.4% by a stranger; and 18.0% by their spouse, parent, or child.
• For homicides with a known contributing circumstance, 40.1% resulted from an unspecified argument, 19.8% were gang-related, 14.1% were domestic violence-related, and 3.5% occurred in connection with the commission of a rape, robbery, or burglary.
• There were 1,269 homicide arrests in 2025, down 2.8% from the 1,305 homicide arrests reported in 2024.

Crime in California 2025 summarizes statewide statistics on reported crimes, arrests, dispositions of adult felony arrests, adult probation, criminal justice personnel, civilians’ complaints against peace officers, domestic violence-related calls for assistance, anti-reproductive rights crimes, law enforcement officers killed or assaulted, and violent crimes against senior citizens. Some key findings include:

• The statewide violent crime rate decreased 10.2% in 2025, from 480.3 per 100,000 people in 2024 to 431.1 in 2025, remaining well below California’s historical peak of 1,103.9 recorded in 1992.
• The property crime rate decreased 14.3%, from 2,082.7 in 2024 to 1,785.8 in 2025.
• The total arrest rate increased 3.6%, from 2,673.8 in 2024 to 2,770.4 in 2025.
• Domestic violence-related calls for assistance decreased from 163,024 in 2024 to 157,416 in 2025.
• The number of law enforcement officers assaulted in the line of duty increased from 13,547 in 2024 to 14,345 in 2025.

Use of Force Incident Reporting 2025 summarizes incidents that meet the reporting criteria in California Government Code section 12525.2, including use of force resulting in serious bodily injury or death, or the discharge of a firearm by a civilian, peace officer, or both. Some key findings include:

• In 2025, 619 incidents involved use of force resulting in serious bodily injury or death of a civilian or officer, or the discharge of a firearm.
• In 2025, 633 civilians were involved in incidents that involved the discharge of a firearm or use of force resulting in serious bodily injury or death. Of those civilians, 572 were male and 58 were female, and:
• 50.7% were Hispanic
• 26.9% were white
• 17.5% were Black
• In 2025, 1,257 officers were involved in incidents. Of those officers:
• 81.8% were not injured
• 17.8% were injured
• 0.4% died

Juvenile Justice in California 2025 tracks key points in the juvenile justice process, including arrests, referrals to probation departments, petitions filed, and dispositions for juveniles tried in juvenile and adult courts. Some key findings include:

• Juvenile arrests decreased 7.0%, from 32,874 in 2024 to 30,568 in 2025.
• Of the 30,568 juvenile arrests, 46.7% were for felony offenses, 52.1% were for misdemeanor offenses, and 1.2% were for status offenses, which are acts that would not be classified as crimes if committed by adults, such as curfew violations, truancy, running away, and incorrigibility.
• Among juveniles referred to county probation departments, 91.5% were referred by law enforcement agencies.
• Of juvenile cases referred to county probation departments, 35.1% were closed at intake with no further action taken.
• Of the 95 juveniles whose cases were processed in adult court, 46.3% resulted in a conviction.

Crime Guns, Inspections, and Handguns in California 2025 examines recovered firearms that were illegally possessed, used in a crime, or suspected of being used in a crime — also known as “crime guns” — including information about the sources and origins of those firearms. The report also includes firearm dealer and ammunition vendor inspection data, information about the Bureau of Firearms’ correction process, and details about the Roster of Certified Handguns, which lists handguns approved for retail sale in California because they meet specified testing and safety requirements. Some key findings include:

• In 2025, law enforcement agencies in California recovered and entered 46,288 unique crime guns with identifiable serial numbers into the Automated Firearm System (AFS).
• Of the crime guns entered in 2025, 8,877 were unserialized, including 6,940 identified as unserialized ghost guns.
• The number of ghost guns recovered as crime guns peaked at 10,969 in 2021 and has decreased every year since, declining by over one-third between 2021 and 2025.
• In 2025, 13,613 recovered crime guns were traceable to 1,213 distinct California firearm dealers.
• During 2025, DOJ completed 316 inspections of firearm dealers and ammunition vendors, including 221 firearm dealer inspections and 95 ammunition vendor inspections.
• In 2025, 117 handguns were added to the Handgun Roster, 27 were removed, and 6 were denied for listing. As of December 31, 2025, there were 1,020 handguns on the Roster. 

All of the reports are available here. The underlying data associated with the annual reports is available on OpenJustice here.

**The information provided below is based on preliminary details regarding an ongoing investigation, which may continue to evolve**

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta today announced that the California Department of Justice (DOJ), pursuant to Assembly Bill 1506 (AB 1506), is investigating and will independently review an officer-involved shooting (OIS) that occurred on January 22, 2026 in Richmond, California. The OIS incident which resulted in the death of one individual occurred around 7:20 a.m. and involved the Richmond Police Department. 

Following notification of this incident, DOJ’s California Police Shooting Investigation Team initiated an investigation in accordance with AB 1506 mandates. Upon completion of the investigation, it will be turned over to DOJ’s Special Prosecutions Section within the Criminal Law Division for independent review. Anyone who has information related to this OIS incident and wishes to report it may do so by calling (916) 210-2871. 

More information on DOJ’s role and responsibilities under AB 1506 is available here: https://oag.ca.gov/ois-incidents.

Urges U.S. Supreme Court to reverse a decision allowing habitual drug users to possess firearms if not impaired at the time of arrest

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta today joined a bipartisan coalition of 20 attorneys general in filing an amicus brief in United States v. Hemani, a case before the U.S. Supreme Court. In the brief, the attorneys general support the federal government’s argument that a federal law prohibiting unlawful drug users from possessing firearms is constitutional and ask the U.S. Supreme Court to vacate a lower court decision finding the law in question to be in violation of the Second Amendment.  

“Drugs and guns are a dangerous combination. Potentially dangerous drug users should not possess firearms — this is a commonsense notion to prevent people who use drugs from harming themselves, their loved ones, or their communities,” said Attorney General Bonta. “Both red and blue states alike — recognizing the dangers posed by combining habitual drug use with firearms — have imposed firearm restrictions to prevent gun violence. Today I urge the Supreme Court to reverse a lower court decision, uphold public safety, and keep firearms out of the reach of people who are drug users.”

The underlying case concerns the possession of a firearm by an active marijuana, cocaine, and promethazine user. Under federal law, title 18, section 922(g)(3) of the United States Code specifically bars an individual who is “an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance” from possessing any firearm or ammunition, or shipping or transporting the same in interstate commerce. The defendant in this case moved to dismiss the indictment as a violation of his Second Amendment rights, and a lower court determined that federal law only covers habitual drug users who were intoxicated at the time of arrest. 

In the brief, the attorneys general highlight the unique danger that habitual drug users pose in possessing firearms, and how that danger is separate and apart from individuals who possess firearms while intoxicated. In addition to the clear public safety risks presented by possessing firearms while impaired, habitual drug use can cause some individuals to experience chronic psychological disturbances that affect their conduct and decision making, including their ability to safely handle firearms. Further, because much drug use is illicit, habitual drug users frequently interact with the illegal drug trade, which is inherently dangerous and drives criminality. 

In light of these public safety risks, the vast majority of states regulate firearm use by habitual drug users, similarly to federal law. The widespread nature of these laws reflects the wide consensus that habitual drug users are a risk to public safety and should therefore not have access to firearms. California’s own law under California Penal Code § 29800(a)(1) prohibits possession of firearms by any individual “who is addicted to the use of any narcotic drug.”   

In submitting the brief, Attorney General Bonta joins the states of Illinois, the District of Columbia, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawai‘i, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington.

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta today joined a bipartisan coalition of 30 attorneys general in filing an amicus brief in Montgomery v. Caribe Transport II, a case before the U.S. Supreme Court. In the brief, the attorneys general ask the U.S. Supreme Court not to allow the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act (FAAAA) to preempt state-law claims against freight brokers for the negligent selection of drivers who harm motorists. Tort law is an important tool used to remedy civil wrongs, and its primary purpose is to compensate victims of wrongful acts, including negligence. 

“Today, I join attorneys general across the political spectrum in urging the U.S. Supreme Court to reject the notion that federal law preempts state laws that protect roadway safety and provide remedies when predictable accidents occur as a result of negligent hiring decisions by commercial-trucking businesses,” said Attorney General Bonta. “States must preserve the right to make our roadways safe and ensure companies that are negligent about roadway safety are held accountable and compensate the victims they harm.” 

The underlying case is a personal injury action brought by the victim of an automobile accident against the driver of a tractor-trailer, the trucking company that employed the driver, and the freight broker that hired the trucking company. The district court held that the freight broker could not be held responsible for the accident because the negligent selection theory was preempted by the FAAAA. In the amicus brief, the attorneys general explain that states have historically held the authority to regulate the safety of their roadways through statutes and tort law and argue that the laws at issue were not among the narrow category of price, route, or service regulations preempted by the FAAAA, and that the FAAAA expressly preserves broad state authority to enact and enforce safety laws, including laws such as these. 

In filing the brief, Attorney General Bonta joins the attorneys general of Ohio, Arizona, Arkansas, Delaware, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Vermont, Virginia, West Virginia, and the District of Columbia.

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta today joined a coalition of 23 attorneys general filing an amicus brief with the U.S. Supreme Court in support of a Federal Trade Commission (FTC) commissioner who is challenging President Trump’s illegal attempt to fire her without cause.

A copy of the brief can be found here. 

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta today joined a coalition 23 attorneys general in filing an amicus brief in the U.S. Supreme Court in Donald J. Trump v. Lisa D. Cook, a case concerning President Trump’s attempt to remove Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook from her position on the Federal Reserve Board. The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve is the primary entity that oversees the Federal Reserve System, the U.S. central bank, which is tasked with promoting financial system stability, supervising and regulating financial institutions, and promoting consumer protection. In the brief, the attorneys general ask the U.S. Supreme Court to allow Governor Cook to remain in her post while litigation in the case proceeds, citing concerns that given the Federal Reserve’s responsibilities, increased institutional uncertainty from the fallout of Governor Cook’s removal would cause downstream economic harms on states.

“The Federal Reserve Board serves all Americans by promoting the health and stability of the U.S. economy and financial system. By continuing his attempt to remove Governor Lisa Cook — one of seven essential board members — President Trump is not only undermining the Board’s independence but also threatening to throw an institution that safeguards California’s economy into chaos,” said Attorney General Bonta. “From designing their state budgets to taking out a mortgage, the State of California and its people depend on stability, independence, and good governance at the Federal Reserve. I urge the U.S. Supreme Court to uphold the preliminary injunction that has allowed Governor Cook to continue her work on the Board of Governors while litigation proceeds.”

In August 2025, President Trump attempted to remove Lisa Cook from the Board of Governors “for cause.” The purported “cause” was an allegation that Governor Cook had defrauded mortgage lenders by claiming two primary residences to receive lower interest rates in 2021, prior to her appointment to the Federal Reserve. The U.S. Department of Justice has opened an investigation into the matter, but the allegations have not been substantiated to date. For the Federal Reserve Board to function as Congress intended, dismissals of governors for cause must mean something more specific than an unreviewable reason left entirely to the President’s discretion. Otherwise, “for cause” then means “for whatever reason the President decides,” which is nothing more than termination at the President’s discretion because he does not like the person or the decisions the board is making — an approach to governing the U.S. financial system that Congress has rejected. Despite the lack of evidence, a premature investigation, and a District Court ruling that Governor Cook should stay in her post while the investigation proceeds, President Trump is again attempting to move forward with the removal of Governor Cook. 

In the brief, the attorneys general argue that allowing President Trump to immediately remove Governor Cook from the Board of Governors would undermine the judiciary's important role in ensuring the President acts within his authority. Concerningly, given the Federal Reserve Board’s critical role in promoting the stability of the financial system, Governor Cook’s sudden remove is expected to likely result in higher and more volatile inflation, unemployment, and market conditions that may harm states by: 

• Undermining the projections used to craft state budgets; 
• Increasing costs to provide state services; and 
• Increasing costs for state services to support people who are unemployed. 

Joining Attorney General Bonta in filing the amicus brief are the attorneys general from Arizona, Connecticut, Colorado, Delaware, Hawaiʻi, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, Wisconsin, and the District of Columbia.  

A copy of the amicus brief can be found here.

Federal law invoked by Trump Administration, IEEPA, makes no mention of “tariffs,” “duties,” or even “customs,” “taxes,” or “imposts.”  

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta and Governor Gavin Newsom today filed an amicus brief in the U.S. Supreme Court in Learning Resources Inc. v. Trump, opposing the Trump Administration’s persistent efforts to impose illegal tariffs that have sent shockwaves and uncertainty through global economies, markets, and consumers. In the brief, Attorney General Bonta argues that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), which the President has used as a vehicle to levy the tariffs in question, does not delegate any authority to the President to impose tariffs. Learning Resources Inc. v. Trump is scheduled for oral argument before the Supreme Court on Wednesday, November 5, 2025. President Trump’s illegal tariffs are causing uncertainty and unpredictability, which is bad for business, bad for the economy, and as the fourth largest economy in the world, bad for California. In April, Attorney General Bonta and Governor Newsom filed a lawsuit challenging President Trump’s unlawful use of power to impose tariffs without the consent of Congress. 

“President Trump’s illegal tariffs impact businesses, consumers, and states across the nation — and they are illegal. Any attempt by the Trump Administration to interpret IEEPA as giving it the power to impose tariffs is a feat of mental gymnastics,” said Attorney General Rob Bonta. “No matter how you spin it, no matter what definitions the Administration reaches for, 2 + 2 does not equal 10. Congress does not hide elephants in mouseholes — if Congress had intended to grant the President such extraordinary authority, it would have said so. Today, California asks the U.S. Supreme Court to rule that IEEPA does not authorize the President to impose tariffs.”

“Trump’s illegal tariffs are punishing American families and small businesses. It’s not policy or business acumen — it’s betrayal and grift. Americans are struggling to put food on their tables, and Trump’s response is to send $20 billion in taxpayer money to Argentina and leave our farmers and ranchers out to dry," said Governor Gavin Newsom. "While Trump continues to play political games and make shady deals for his own benefit, California will keep fighting on your behalf. We urge the court to stand firm against authoritarianism and uphold the rule of law that it is sworn to protect.”

Since February 2025, President Trump has issued an unprecedented and chaotic series of executive orders imposing tariffs, ranging from 10% to 145% on nearly every trading partner of the United States. California is the fourth-largest economy in the world and the largest importer of goods among the 50 states. The illegal tariffs imposed by President Trump using IEEPA threaten to devastate California’s economy, depriving it of $25 billion and more than 64,000 jobs. 

Instead of invoking any of the Tariff or Trade Acts as authority for his unilateral overhaul of our nation’s tariff system, the President invoked IEEPA, a federal statute enacted in 1977 that allows the President to take certain specified actions in response to a declared national emergency resulting from an unusual and extraordinary foreign threat. In the nearly fifty years since its enactment, no President has ever before invoked IEEPA to impose tariffs because IEEPA does not reference the power to tax or tariff at all.   

Moreover, every time that Congress has delegated tariff authority to the President, it has referred explicitly to tariffs, using terms like “duties” or “tariffs.” IEEPA makes no mention of “tariffs,” “duties,” or any similar term, such as “customs,” “taxes,” or “imposts.” IEEPA includes the phrase “regulate . . . importation,” which the Administration has taken to mean impose tariffs — despite the Administration’s inability to point to a single other statute in the entirety of the U.S. Code where “regulate” has been understood to bestow such power to the President. 

BACKGROUND:

Attorney General Bonta is committed to challenging the illegal tariffs that threaten California jobs, businesses, and consumers — tariffs that have sent shockwaves through financial markets, businesses, and consumers in every corner of the globe. The California Department of Justice has challenged President Trump’s illegal tariffs on all fronts:

In April, Attorney General Bonta and Governor Newsom filed a lawsuit challenging President Trump’s unlawful use of power to impose tariffs without the consent of Congress. In June, a judge granted California's request for dismissal to allow the state to appeal its case challenging the Trump Administration’s illegal tariffs after the Administration asked that the case be transferred to the Court of International Trade — a motion that California opposed. The dismissal kept the case in California and allowed California to appeal to the Ninth Circuit. California’s case has been held in abeyance by the Ninth Circuit pending the Supreme Court’s resolution of these cases. For more information on California’s case, please see here.

Other states and entities nationwide have filed lawsuits of their own. Attorney General Bonta has filed an amicus brief in the Court of International Trade in Oregon v. Trump as well as in the D.C. Circuit in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump, cases challenging President Trump’s illegal imposition of tariffs.

Attorney General Bonta has hosted roundtable discussions in San Francisco and Los Angeles for business leaders on the front lines of the tariff war to discuss the impacts of tariffs on industries across California. 

A copy of the brief is available here.

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta today joined 22 other attorneys general in urging the U.S. Supreme Court to review a lower court decision that prevents individuals from suing to enforce Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act (VRA), which prohibits voting practices or procedures that discriminate on the basis of race. For nearly 60 years, both the U.S. Attorney General and private citizens have been able to file lawsuits to enforce Section 2 of the VRA when they believed it was violated. In 2022, individual voters and two tribes filed a lawsuit under Section 2 of the VRA challenging North Dakota’s state legislative districts that were adopted following the 2020 census. After the district court found that the map unlawfully diluted Native Americans’ votes, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eight Circuit reversed the district court’s decision and held that individual voters and organizations cannot sue to enforce Section 2 of the VRA. The Eighth Circuit is the only federal circuit in the country that has adopted this restrictive view. At the plaintiffs’ request, the U.S. Supreme Court temporarily halted the implementation of the Eighth Circuit’s ruling. The plaintiffs then requested that the U.S. Supreme Court hear the case and reverse the Eighth Circuit’s decision. The amicus brief filed by Attorney General Bonta and the coalition supports this request. 

“Voting is the fundamental right from which all other rights flow, and for the past 60 years, Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act has helped ensure that Americans can cast their ballots free from racial discrimination. While federal enforcement has been essential, private citizens have been responsible for more than 90% of all Section 2 challenges between 1982 and 2024,” said Attorney General Bonta. “That’s why my fellow attorneys general and I are urging the U.S. Supreme Court to step in and confirm that private citizens can continue to enforce this important provision, as they have done for decades. Especially when voting rights are at stake, citizens should not have to rely solely on distant authorities in Washington D.C. for legal action.”

The Eighth Circuit’s ruling ended the ability of private citizens in the seven states comprising the Eighth Circuit (Minnesota, Arkansas, Iowa, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, and South Dakota) to enforce Section 2 when faced with racial discrimination in the electoral process. If allowed to stand, the Eighth Circuit’s decision would concentrate enforcement of Section 2 of the VRA solely in the hands of a single federal officer — the U.S Attorney General. In the amicus brief, the coalition argues that vesting Section 2 enforcement in a single federal officer, regardless of which party holds power, is inadequate and risks radical underenforcement of voting rights. The coalition points out that the U.S. Attorney General lacks the resources to monitor, investigate, and litigate voting rights violations all across the nation. 

Additionally, the coalition emphasizes the deterrent effect of robust enforcement of our voting laws. Eliminating voters’ right to bring suit under the VRA could lessen the likelihood that the law’s critical protections will be enforced, thereby reducing the incentives for state and local officials to comply with the VRA when crafting policy. As evidence, the brief highlights that, after the U.S. Supreme Court effectively struck down the VRA’s provision that required certain jurisdictions with a history of racial discrimination to receive federal pre-approval before changing voting laws, states previously subject to preclearance promptly enacted restrictive voting laws. 

In filing the amicus brief, Attorney General Bonta joins the attorneys general from Minnesota, Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, and Wisconsin. 

A copy of the amicus brief can be found here.

Be aware of any text or website that looks “official”— it may not be 

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta today warned drivers of a significant increase in text-based toll scam activity. The texts in question claim consumers owe FasTrak express lane or toll charges, link to a website and ask for online payment. This scam is designed to deceive drivers into entering banking or credit card information into a website, fraudulently claiming to represent tolling agencies. Attorney General Bonta urges Californians to not click on links in texts appearing to alert consumers to overdue toll charges. 

“Scammers have become skilled at imitating legitimate companies, sometimes even linking to legitimate websites. Text-based toll charge scams are prevalent right now and knowing what to look for can keep consumers safe against these tactics,” said Attorney General Bonta. “I urge Californians to take practical steps to guard against being victimized by scammers, including visiting official websites only and talking to friends and family who may be unaware of these dangers.” 

Most of these scams claim to be from FasTrak and link to a fraudulent website claiming to be run by The Toll Roads. The Toll Roads and other California tolling agencies do not send text messages to non-accountholders. 

FasTrak is the electronic toll collection system used on tolled bridges, lanes and roads in California. It allows drivers to pay tolls electronically without having to stop at toll booths. FasTrak does not request payment by text with a link to a website.  The Transportation Corridor Agencies (TCA), operator of The Toll Roads in Orange County, advises accountholders to verify a valid text notification by logging into their account at thetollroads.com or through The Toll Roads app. 

For all other toll agencies, please use official webpages only — you can find a list of California toll webpages below.

If You Receive a Possible Toll Scam Text:

• DO NOT CLICK ON THE LINK. 
• File a complaint. File a complaint with the FBI, the Federal Trade Commission, and our office. Be sure to include the phone number from where the text originated and the website listed within the text.
• Delete any scam texts received. 
• Check your account using the toll service’s legitimate website. For a comprehensive list of all tolling agencies in California and their websites, please see here or below.

            o       The Toll Roads: https://thetollroads.com/
            o       Bay Area FasTrak: https://bayareafastrak.org/
            o       Metro ExpressLanes: https://metroexpresslanes.net/
            o       91 Express Lanes: https://91expresslanes.com/
            o       405 Express Lanes: https://405expresslanes.com/
            o       Riverside Express: https://riversideexpress.com/
            o       SANDAG: https://www.sandag.org/fastrak/

• Secure your personal information and financial accounts. If you clicked any link or provided your information, take efforts to secure your personal information and financial accounts. Dispute any unfamiliar charges.

To report a text-based scam to the Attorney General, visit oag.ca.gov/contact/general-contact-form. 

SACRAMENTO – Recognizing that the incoming presidential administration poses a threat to reproductive rights, California Attorney General Rob Bonta today announced two sponsored bills related to reproductive healthcare. The Medication Abortion Access bill, joint authored by Assemblymember Maggy Krell (D-Sacramento) and Majority Leader Cecilia Aguiar-Curry (D-Winters), will ensure that Californians continue to have access to abortion care, including medication abortion, and will shield manufacturers, distributors, authorized healthcare providers, and individuals from any civil, criminal, or professional liability when legally transporting, distributing, or administering medication abortion in California. The Attorney General Enforcement of the Reproductive Privacy Act (RPA) bill, authored by Assemblymember Rebecca Bauer-Kahan (D-Orinda), will, among other things, allow the Attorney General to seek monetary penalties from local government entities that interfere with the reproductive rights of Californians by using their power to block or obstruct abortion providers from opening in their regions.

“As a father of two incredible young women, who have fewer rights than their mother and grandmother, I see the concern in their eyes as they navigate a world that is chipping away at their reproductive rights. I know this concern is felt by individuals across this country too,” said Attorney General Rob Bonta. “I want to make it unequivocally clear: California will remain a safe haven for reproductive rights and access to abortion care, no matter who is in the White House. We have been preparing for this moment, and today’s legislation doubles down on our commitment to protect those seeking reproductive healthcare, including access to medication abortion. Progress will always prevail, and I will use the full force of this office and all the tools at my disposal to fearlessly and fiercely defend your constitutional rights, including your reproductive rights.”

“It is our job as legislators to ensure that women have access to comprehensive healthcare and that decisions about her reproductive health remain between her and her physician,” said Assemblymember Akilah Weber, M.D. (D-La Mesa). “As a board certified OB/GYN I am aware of the complexity and uniqueness associated with each pregnancy and strongly advocate against generalized policies that can ultimately cause harm and in some cases lead to unnecessary maternal deaths.”

“We here in California have been fighting to maintain reproductive rights for women across the country. I’m proud to stand with Assemblymember Krell to fight to protect those rights for California women, because women should make their own health care decisions, said Assembly Majority Leader Cecilia Aguiar-Curry (D-Winters). “As Chair of the Legislative Women’s Caucus, we will continue the fight as women in other states face increasing restrictions to the reproductive health care they need.”

“With Prop 1, we enshrined the right to abortion in California’s constitution. But this right is meaningless if it can’t be safely accessed,” said Assemblymember Maggy Krell (D-Sacramento). “This law ensures that women in California will have access to medication abortion, even in an uncertain federal environment.”

“The medication abortion protocols are not only safe, effective and most widely used methods of abortion care, they are an integral part of the full spectrum of reproductive healthcare, said Onyemma Obiekea, Policy Director, Black Women for Wellness Action Project. “Safeguarding continued access to medication abortion in California is imperative for women and birthing people in our state to make the best decisions for ourselves and our families with dignity. We are deeply grateful to the Attorney General and champions in the legislature, who are committed to ensuring that our communities have the resources necessary to support our reproductive autonomy and determine our reproductive destinies.”

"The fundamental right to reproductive healthcare is non-negotiable in California. No individual should face barriers to accessing care due to the deliberate actions of anyone,” said Assemblymember Rebecca Bauer-Kahan (D-Orinda). “By empowering the Attorney General to enforce the Reproductive Privacy Act, this legislation ensures that our laws are more than words on paper—they are protections in practice. I’m proud to stand with Attorney General Bonta in defending the reproductive freedoms of every Californian.”

“For two decades, anti-abortion extremists have targeted Mifepristone and sought to interfere and inhibit people’s access to this safe and effective drug, even in states like California where abortion is legal. We know the incoming Trump administration and anti-abortion majority in Congress threaten pregnant people’s access to medication abortion and we must preserve and protect its availability in California,” said Planned Parenthood CEO and President Jodi Hicks. “Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California is proud to co-sponsor this legislation with Attorney General Bonta and Assemblymember Krell to protect access to medication abortion and the ability of providers like us to provide patients with the care they need and deserve. As we prepare for the challenges ahead, PPAC is committed to working alongside our state, legislative, and organizational partners to fiercely defend reproductive freedom in California, including the right of all patients to access their preferred care, when and where they need it.”

“Bold state action like that in Medical Abortion Access is urgently needed to protect abortion access as we prepare to face swift and severe threats to sexual and reproductive health nationwide,” said Shannon Olivieri Hovis, Vice President of Public Affairs at Essential Access Health. “Essential Access Health proudly administers three abortion access grant programs established by the state of California and has served as the lead implementation partner helping UCs and CSUs integrate medication abortion on campus. We are grateful to Attorney General Bonta and Assemblymember Krell for their resolute leadership to protect access in California, and we will continue to work day in and day out with our partners and elected leaders to secure additional protections critical to safeguarding abortion access in California.”

For decades, medication abortion has been an accessible and affordable medication for individuals who need critical, time-sensitive reproductive care, including for abortions and the treatment of miscarriages. Approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in 2000, mifepristone, one of two pills used in medication abortions, is safe and effective. Mifepristone is so safe that it has a better safety record than household medications such as Tylenol, penicillin, and Viagra.

If the federal government tries to ban the mailing and distribution of medication abortion, the Medical Abortion Access bill would shield manufacturers, distributors, authorized healthcare providers, and individuals from civil or criminal liability or professional disciplinary action for accessing, mailing, shipping, receiving, transporting, distributing, or administering medication abortion in California.

Currently, there have been occurrences of interference with the reproductive rights of Californians from local government entities using their power to block or obstruct abortion providers from opening in their regions. The most recent example was the City of Beverly Hills’ interference with an abortion provider’s ability to open within its borders. The Attorney General Enforcement of the RPA bill would allow the Attorney General to seek monetary penalties for RPA violations from government entities, as well as allow the Attorney General to put the expense of those investigations and civil prosecutions on the government entities who violate the law through recovery of the Attorney General’s fees and expenses.

Attorney General Bonta has been unwavering in his continued commitment to defend reproductive rights in California and nationwide. Last month, he held Beverly Hills accountable for preventing a reproductive health clinic from opening, violating California’s constitutional right to abortion. This September, he sued a hospital in Northern California over its failure to provide emergency abortion healthcare. Earlier this year, he co-led a coalition of 24 attorneys general in filing an amicus brief before the en banc court of the Ninth Circuit, supporting the Biden administration’s challenge to Idaho’s near-total ban on abortion. Working with the California State Legislature, he also sponsored legislation, now law, to protect reproductive digital information and prevent the arrest of individuals or the disclosure of information by law enforcement in an investigation related to any abortion already legal in California. 

The text of the Medication Abortion Access bill (Assembly Bill 54) can be found here and of the RPA bill (Assembly Bill 67) here.